White-bellied and Orange-bellied Frogs
(Geocrinia alba and Geocrinia vitellina)
Recovery Plan
Geocrinia alba
Geocrinia vitellina
Western Australian Wildlife Management Program No. 59
Department of Parks and Wildlife
August 2014
Western Australian Wildlife Management Program No. 59
White-bellied and Orange-bellied Frogs
(Geocrinia alba and Geocrinia vitellina)
Recovery Plan
August 2014
Department of Parks and Wildlife
Locked Bag 104, Bentley Delivery Centre WA 6983
Foreword
Recovery Plans are developed within the framework laid down in Department of Parks and Wildlife Policy
Statements Nos 44 and 50 (CALM 1992; CALM 1994), and the Australian Government Department of the
Environment’s Recovery Planning Compliance Checklist for Legislative and Process Requirements (DEWHA
2008). Recovery Plans delineate, justify and schedule management actions necessary to support the
recovery of threatened species and ecological communities. Recovery plans are a partnership between the
Department of the Environment and the Department of Parks and Wildlife. The Department of Parks and
Wildlife acknowledges the role of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and
the Department of the Environment in guiding the implementation of this recovery plan. The attainment of
objectives and the provision of funds necessary to implement actions are subject to budgetary and other
constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address a range of priorities. Recovery
Plans do not necessarily represent the views or the official position of individuals or organisations
represented on the Recovery Team.
This Recovery Plan was approved by the Department of Parks and Wildlife, Western Australia. Approved
Recovery Plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in status of the taxon or
ecological community and the completion of recovery actions. Information in this Recovery Plan was
accurate as of August 2014.
Recovery Plan Preparation: This Recovery Plan was prepared by Kim Williams, Department of Parks and
Wildlife, South West Region and Gary McMahon, Ecosystem Solutions (PO Box 685, Dunsborough WA
6281) on behalf of and with guidance from the Geocrinia Recovery Team.
Acknowledgements; The following groups or organisations have provided valuable support in the
implementation of the previous recovery plan for this species and the development of this plan; the
University of Western Australia, Augusta-Margaret River Shire, Lower Blackwood Land Conservation
District Committee, National Threatened Species Network and Perth Zoo. Manda Page, Holly Raudino, Mia
Podesta, Amy Mutton and Abby Thomas (Department of Parks and Wildlife) reviewed and updated the
plan and prepared figures.
Citation: Department of Parks and Wildlife (2014). White-bellied and Orange-bellied Frogs (Geocrinia alba
and Geocrinia vitellina) Recovery Plan. Wildlife Management Program No. 59. Department of Parks and
Wildlife, Perth, WA.
Disclaimer: The State of Western Australia and its employees do not guarantee that this publication is
without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all
liability for any error, loss or other consequence that may arise from you relying on any information in this
publication.
Contents
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
2
3
4
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1
Description ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1
Conservation status ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1
Taxonomy ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Biology and ecology .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3
Distribution ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4
Status of populations ........................................................................................................................... 6
Habitat critical for survival ................................................................................................................ 11
Threats .................................................................................................................................................. 11
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
Physical habitat disturbance ............................................................................................................................................................. 12
Alterations in hydrology ..................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Vegetation clearing .............................................................................................................................................................................. 12
Inappropriate fire events .................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Decrease in water quality................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Disease....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Climate change ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
Lack of knowledge ................................................................................................................................................................................ 16
5
6
7
8
9
10
International obligations ................................................................................................................... 16
Affected interests ................................................................................................................................ 17
Role and interests of aboriginal groups .......................................................................................... 17
Social and economic interests ........................................................................................................... 18
Broader biodiversity benefits ............................................................................................................ 19
Recovery history .................................................................................................................................. 20
10.1
10.2
11
12
13
14
15
16
Recovery actions to date.................................................................................................................................................................... 20
Review of 1995 Recovery Plan ......................................................................................................................................................... 28
Management practices ....................................................................................................................... 29
Guide for decision makers ................................................................................................................. 30
Recovery goal and objectives ............................................................................................................ 31
Recovery actions .................................................................................................................................. 32
Implementation and evaluation ........................................................................................................ 41
References ............................................................................................................................................ 42
Appendix I ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 45
Summary
Geocrinia alba (Wardell-Johnson & Roberts 1989)
Family:
Myobatrachidae
DPaW Region:
South West Region
DPaW District:
Blackwood District
IBRA Regions:
Warren
Shire:
Shire of Augusta – Margaret River
Current status of taxon:

Endangered under Section 179 of the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act);

Listed as Schedule 1 of the Specially Protected Fauna Notice under section 14(2)(ba) of the
Western Australian Wildlife Conservation Act 1950. Ranked as Critically Endangered using the
IUCN Red List criteria (IUCN 2004) by the Government of Western Australia.
Habitat critical to survival:
Geocrinia alba inhabit swampy flows along drainage depressions in an area of subdued topography (relief
< 80m) near the junction of the Leeuwin-Naturaliste Ridge and Blackwood Plateau (Wardell-Johnson &
Roberts 1993; Conroy 2001). Breeding sites are typically associated with sandy soils, dense overstorey
vegetation dominated by Homalospermum firmum, Agonis linearifolia, Astartea fascicularis, and a dense
ground layer of rhizomatous vegetation, usually composed of Pseudoloxocarya sp., Loxocarya sp. and
Tetrarrhena laevis (Wardell-Johnson & Roberts 1993; Conroy 2001).
Geocrinia vitellina (Wardell-Johnson & Roberts 1989)
Family:
Myobatrachidae
DPaW Region:
South West Region
DPaW District:
Blackwood District
IBRA Regions:
Warren
Shire:
Shire of Augusta – Margaret River
Current Status of Taxon:

Vulnerable under Section 179 of the Commonwealth EPBC Act;

Listed as Schedule 1 of the Specially Protected Fauna Notice under section 14(2)(ba) of the
Western Australian Wildlife Conservation Act. Ranked as Vulnerable using the IUCN Red List
criteria (IUCN 2004) by the Government of Western Australia.
Habitat critical to survival:
Geocrinia vitellina inhabit sites that are structurally, edaphically and floristically similar to those of G. alba,
though the two species do not co-occur.
Threatening Processes
The main threatening processes that are limiting the recovery of these Geocrinia species that are
addressed in this plan are:

Physical habitat disturbance;

Alterations in hydrology;

Vegetation clearing;

Inappropriate fire events;

Decrease in water quality;

Disease;

Climate change; and

Lack of knowledge.
Recovery Goal:
The overarching goal of the recovery program is to maintain or increase the current extent and viability of
these species.
Recovery Objectives

To protect and effectively manage populations and the habitat critical for their survival

To increase species viability through population augmentation and establishment

To achieve an evidence-based management approach

To increase community awareness and understanding
Geocrinia alba criteria for success:
This Recovery Plan will be deemed successful if, within a 10 year period, all of the following are achieved:

The total number of extant subpopulations of G. alba do not decrease by more than 20 per cent (using
2012 data as a baseline).

There is no permanent reduction (using a five year rolling average) in the number of calling G. alba
males in the McCleod Creek core habitat populations that had greater than 10 calling males in 2009.

At least two G. alba populations with a minimum 10 calling males are successfully established via
translocation.

An evidence-based management approach is applied to conserve and manage G. alba.
Geocrinia alba criteria for failure:
This Recovery Plan will be deemed to have failed if, within a 10 year period, any of the following are
achieved:

The total number of extant subpopulations of G. alba declines by more than 20 per cent (using 2012
data as a baseline).

There is permanent reduction of 40 per cent or more (using a five year rolling average) in the number
of calling G. alba males in the McCleod Creek habitat populations that had greater than 10 calling
males in 2009.

No G. alba populations (with a minimum 10 calling males) is successfully established via translocation.

An evidence-based management approach cannot be applied to conserve and manage G. alba.
Geocrinia vitellina criteria for success:
This Recovery Plan will be deemed successful if, within a 10 year period, all of the following are achieved:

The number, distribution and size of subpopulations of G. vitellina known in the wild remains stable or
increases (based on a five year rolling average of male call counts).

At least one G. vitellina population with a minimum of 10 calling males is successfully established via
translocation.

An evidence-based management approach is applied to conserve and manage G. vitellina.
Geocrinia vitellina criteria for failure:
This Recovery Plan will be deemed to have failed if, within a 10 year period, any of the following are
achieved:

Any naturally occurring (i.e. non-translocated) G. vitellina population becomes extinct as a result of
controllable anthropogenic threats (e.g. fire, feral pigs, deliberate habitat destruction).

No G. vitellina populations (with a minimum 10 calling males) are successfully established via
translocation.

An evidence-based management approach cannot be applied to conserve and manage G. vitellina.
1 Introduction
Recovery plans are important management documents that enable recovery activities related to
threatened species and ecological communities to be progressed within a planned and logical
framework.
The white-bellied frog (Geocrinia alba) and orange-bellied frog (Geocrinia vitellina) were discovered in
1983 and described in 1989 (Wardell-Johnson & Roberts 1989) with an extended description provided
in 1990 (Roberts et al. 1990). A Recovery Plan was prepared in 1995 (Wardell-Johnson et al. 1995) and
this plan constitutes a review of the recovery actions from that plan and an update and development of
new recovery actions for the next 10 years, based on updated knowledge and information.
This document constitutes a formal recovery plan for these two Geocrinia species and includes
distribution, salient aspects of ecology and biology, threatening processes and decline, and presents the
actions, and associated costs, necessary to recover these species.
1.1 Description
Geocrinia alba is a small frog (~20-25mm) with a light brown to grey dorsal surface and a white or very
faint yellow wash ventral surface. Ventral skin is smooth and the dorsal surface has two parallel rows of
brown “wart-like” spots that extend along the body from the eyes to cloaca. Its toes are short and
unwebbed. The males mating call is a series of 11-18 pulses repeated irregularly (Roberts et al. 1990).
Geocrinia vitellina is similar except it has a yellow/orange ventral surface and its mating call is a series of
9-15 pulses (Roberts et al. 1990).
1.2 Conservation status
Geocrinia alba is listed as Endangered under Section 179 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). It is listed as ‘rare or likely to become extinct’ under Section 14(2) of
the Western Australian Wildlife Conservation Act 1950, and is ranked as Critically Endangered by the
Western Australian Government using the IUCN Red List criteria (IUCN 2004), under criterion B 2a, b (ii,
iii, iv, v):
Area of occupancy estimated to be less than 10km², and:
a. Severely fragmented or known to exist at only a single location.
b. Continuing decline, observed, inferred or projected, in the following;
(ii) area of occupancy,
1
(iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat,
(iv) number of locations or subpopulations,
(v) number of mature individuals.
The conservation status for G. alba in 1995 was Endangered (under the Endangered Species Protection
Act 1992 (ESPA)). In 2000, the status was transferred as Endangered under the EPBC Act. Note the ESPA
did not include the category of Critically Endangered, and the classification of the species under that Act
was transferred to the EPBC Act.
Data obtained from monitoring G. alba over the last 10 years indicates that the species is likely to meet
the criteria of Critically Endangered under the EPBC Act, consistent with the State classification under
the Wildlife Conservation Act.
Geocrinia vitellina is listed as Vulnerable under Section 179 of the Commonwealth EPBC Act. It is listed
as rare or likely to become extinct under Section 14(2) of the Western Australian Wildlife Conservation
Act, and is ranked as Vulnerable under IUCN criteria (IUCN 2004) by the Western Australian
Government, under criterion VU D2:
Population with a very restricted area of occupancy (typically less than 20km²) or number of
locations (typically five or fewer) such that it is prone to the effects of human activities or
stochastic events within a very short time period in an uncertain future, and is thus capable of
becoming Critically Endangered or even Extinct in a very short time period.
The conservation status for G. vitellina in 1995 was Vulnerable under the ESPA.
In 2005, the
conservation status was considered unchanged and classified as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act.
1.3 Taxonomy
The white-bellied frog (Geocrinia alba, Wardell-Johnson & Roberts 1989) and orange-bellied frog
(Geocrinia vitellina, Wardell-Johnson & Roberts 1989) are members of the Geocrinia rosea frog complex
(Anura: Myobatrachidae). This group includes four allopatric species restricted to the lower south west
of WA. All species lay eggs that undergo direct development, a derived character not found in other
Geocrinia species, or related genera such as Crinia. The current distribution of these four species is
consistent with an allopatric speciation model where subtle geographic barriers have led to their
differentiation (Wardell-Johnson et al. 1995).
Classification of these taxa as distinct species within Geocrinia is justified on the grounds of distinct
differences in ventral colouration, less obvious differences in the male call and significant level of
genetic divergence (Wardell-Johnson et al. 1995).
2
1.4 Biology and ecology
Reproduction and Development
Both species share a fully terrestrial breeding biology. Males form choruses throughout spring
(September to November) and call from small flask-shaped burrows in soil, usually under litter, moss, or
other vegetation (Driscoll 1996; Conroy 2001). Amplexus and oviposition occur within the burrow and
the eggs are left unattended. The clutch sizes are small with studies showing the average numbers of
eggs being 10-12 (Conroy 2001). The eggs hatch and larvae develop and metamorphose within the
burrow in the jelly associated with the egg mass, with no free swimming or feeding stage – a
reproductive strategy known as direct development (Driscoll 1996; Conroy 2001). At metamorphosis,
juveniles leave the nest. The juvenile stage is prolonged and recruitment into the breeding cohort
occurs at 2 or 3 years of age (Conroy 2001). Both species can live for up to six years, however as adult
mortality is high (the adult survival rates are among the lowest observed for anurans) the majority only
breed for a single season (Driscoll 1996; Conroy 2001). In summary, both species have low fecundity,
extended juvenile period and highly variable adult survival. As such, both species are susceptible to
demographic catastrophes, both environmental and stochastic.
The breeding season ranges between late August and early-to-mid December. Clutch size, offspring size
at metamorphosis and development time, all decrease significantly during the season for both species.
Therefore those females that lay earlier produce more and larger offspring, than those that lay later in
the season (Conroy 2001).
Population Studies
Genetic studies and mark-recapture studies confirm that there is very little migration amongst and
between populations. The genetic differences between the populations of G. alba and G. vitellina are
very large, particularly given the small distances between populations (maximum of 18km and 4km
respectively; Driscoll 1996). These large genetic differences suggest that current levels of gene flow are
approaching zero. The conclusion that both species are very sedentary is consistent with a markrecapture study which showed that movement of 95 per cent of adult male frogs, within the study was
less than five metres between seasons within a year, and less than 20m between years (Driscoll 1996;
Driscoll 1997; Conroy 2001). Although, an extinct site was apparently recolonised by G. alba after six
years, indicating that while rare, some movement may be possible between sites. This restricted mobility
has important implications with regard to the potential for dispersal, gene flow and the capacity for
locally extinct populations to re-establish by natural means.
3
Both isolation in continuous populations and genuine isolation of disjunct breeding sites have probably
resulted in the large genetic differences amongst populations of both species (Driscoll 1996). A low
capacity to disperse may reduce the likelihood of recolonisation following local extinctions, and as such
any local extinction may be permanent.
Conroy (2001) states that recruitment is the main driver of population size, with recruits forming the
largest age-class in every year studied.
Annual fluctuations in the number of breeding males are
predominately driven by variations in the level of recruitment to the breeding cohort. In turn,
fluctuations in recruitment appear to be influenced by local, rather than regional phenomena (Conroy
2001; Conroy & Brook 2003).
The male to female ratio is approximately 1:1, based on an analysis of the sex ratio of eggs per clutch
and field studies where the number of egg clutches equalled the number of males marked (Driscoll
1996; Driscoll 1999). For both species it is possible to obtain an accurate estimate of the number of
calling males from aural counts and given the known male to female ratio these data can be
extrapolated to give an estimate of abundance (Driscoll 1998b).
Conroy and Brook (2003) showed that for these two species the population dynamics are most sensitive
to changes in juvenile survival, then to fecundity, and thirdly to adult survival. In practical terms, this
suggests that management interventions which attempt to mitigate threats causing juvenile mortality
are likely to be most successful in arresting metapopulation declines.
1.5 Distribution
These frogs have restricted and patchy distributions. Both species have naturally fragmented
distributions due to their dependence on specific breeding habitat provided in broad drainage lines
with riparian vegetation (Wardell-Johnson & Roberts 1993). It is difficult to estimate the area of
occupancy as the creek lines vary in width from a few centimetres to tens of metres and accurate
mapping of the habitat is not available. Geocrinia alba extent of occurrence is calculated as 130km2
(Roberts et al. 1999) (Figure 1). However, the area of occupancy is expected to be 1.9km2 (WardellJohnson & Roberts 1993). The discrepancy is due to the species not utilising all available suitable habitat
(Wardell-Johnson & Roberts 1993). Approximately 77 per cent of the actual area of occupancy of G.
alba is within privately managed land. Much of this land has been cleared of native vegetation and is
now used for agricultural activities (Figure 1). Wardell-Johnson and Roberts (1991) estimate that 70 per
cent of potentially suitable riparian vegetation has been cleared within the range of G. alba while an
analysis of 2004 aerial imagery has calculated this figure as 65.6 per cent of the extent of occurrence.
Clearing activity, albeit small in scale, continues in the region.
4
Geocrinia vitellina extent of occurrence is calculated to be 6km2 with an area of occupancy based on
suitable habitat estimated at 0.08km2 (Conroy 2001) (Figure 1). The entire range of G. vitellina lies within
the Blackwood River National Park, an area managed by Department of Parks and Wildlife and relatively
free from major modification.
Figure 1: Extent of occurrence for Geocrinia alba (left) and Geocrinia vitellina (right).
5
2 Status of populations
All known populations of both species are considered important.
The recognition of discrete populations is however difficult because the scale of isolation is small and
there is an implied consecutiveness along drainage systems (Wardell-Johnson et al. 1995). For the
purpose of this plan the following definitions apply:

Discrete populations represent discrete management units – defined cautiously given the high
probability of limited dispersal and the low likelihood of natural dispersal. Discrete populations
often occur on separate creek systems, but can also occur on the same creek line (or connecting
tributaries) if any one of three factors exist:
1.
A physical barrier, such as a road. Given the low dispersal ability of both species, roads
may be an effective barrier to population connection.
2.
A change in land use. If the land use adjacent to an area of occupancy changes along
the creek line this may have a local impact on immediately adjacent frog populations
(e.g. water use by adjacent blue gum plantations; spray drift from vineyards).
3.
A lack of survey in intervening areas. If calling frogs have been recorded at two places
but surveys have not been undertaken in the intervening area, then they are considered
discrete populations (also refer to Appendix 1 in Wardell-Johnson et al. 1995 for more
details). The uncertainty about presence/absence in the unsurveyed gap is a cautious
approach to population definition.

A subpopulation is delineated within a population by a distance of 50m along the same creek
line but not separated by a physical barrier, change of land use or lack of survey.
The known and predicted range of G. alba was surveyed in the early 1990s. This resulted in the number
of known populations increasing from 26 recorded in 1991 to 54 in 1993. The definition of a population
was devised (Wardell-Johnson et al. 1995) and applied to G. alba in 1996 and the number of known
subpopulations was 72 (Geocrinia Recovery Team 1996). In December 2007, using the same definitions,
102 subpopulations were recognised. There have been no new subpopulations found since 2007. Of the
102 subpopulations, 26 (25.5 per cent) are now considered locally extinct (a site is described as extinct if
calling males are absent over four consecutive years) (Figures 2 & 3). Recently, a site considered extinct
has been recolonised by a few individuals after six years (K. Williams, Department of Parks and Wildlife,
pers. comm.). Figure 4 shows the number of G. alba subpopulations in different size classes over three
time periods (1995-1999, 2000-2004, 2004-2010). This indicates that there is a trend towards smaller
populations and increased extinctions (Figure 4).
6
Geocrinia alba inhabit swampy flows in drainage depressions in an area of subdued topography (relief
< 80m) near the junction of the Leeuwin-Naturaliste Ridge and Blackwood Plateau (Wardell-Johnson &
Roberts 1993; Conroy 2001). Breeding sites are typically associated with sandy soils, dense overstorey
vegetation dominated by Homalospermum firmum, Taxandria linearifolia, and Astartea fascicularis, and
a dense ground layer of rhizomatous vegetation, usually composed of Pseudoloxocarya sp., Loxocarya
sp. and Tetrarrhena laevis (Wardell-Johnson & Roberts 1993; Conroy 2001).
Fifteen
G.
vitellina
subpopulations
(including
three
at
sites
where
frogs
have
been
translocated/introduced) are found on six tributaries along the northern side of the Blackwood River
(Figures 5 & 6). There have been two extinctions of subpopulations of this species recorded to date, one
naturally occurring subpopulation and one translocated population. Figure 7 shows the number of G.
vitellina subpopulations in different size classes over three time periods (1995-1999, 2000-2004, 20042010). This demonstrates a greatly reduced number of extinctions compared to G. alba, and an increase
in the number of populations with a larger population size (Figure 7).
These occurrences characteristically have a moderate relief of at least 120m elevation (Wardell-Johnson
& Roberts 1993) in contrast to the surrounding areas (Wardell-Johnson & Roberts 1991). Geocrinia
vitellina inhabit sites that are structurally, edaphically and floristically similar to those of G. alba,
however the two species do not co-occur.
Figure 2: Relative abundance of G. alba 1996 - 2012. Cumulative Total (black bars) represents the
total number of subpopulations ever known to have existed since 1996. Net Total (grey bars)
represents the actual number of extant subpopulations recorded per year.
7
Figure 3: Geocrinia alba subpopulation discoveries (grey bars) and extinctions (black bars)
between 1996 and 2012.
1995-1999
2000-2004
2005-2009
50
50
50
40
40
40
30
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
20
10
0
Extinct
<5
5-10
10-20
20+
0
Extinct
<5
5-10
10-20
20+
Extinct
<5
5-10
10-20
20+
Number of calling males
Figure 4: Distribution of Geocrinia alba subpopulations across size classes for three time periods
(1995-1999, 2000-2004 and 2005-2009), based on annual monitoring of the number of calling
males.
8
Figure 5: Relative abundance of Geocrinia vitellina 1996 - 2012. Cumulative Total (black bars)
represents the total number of subpopulations ever known to have existed since 1996. Net Total
(grey bars) represents the actual number of extant subpopulations recorded per year (including
translocations/introductions).
Figure 6: Geocrinia vitellina subpopulation discoveries (grey bars) and translocation failures
(black bars) between 1996 and 2012. Note there have been no extinctions recorded during the
monitoring period.
9
1995-1999
2000-2004
2005-2009
6
6
6
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
Extinct
<5
5-10
10-20
20+
0
Extinct
<5
5-10
10-20
20+
Extinct
<5
5-10
10-20
20+
Number of calling males
Figure 7: Distribution of Geocrinia vitellina subpopulations across size classes for three time
periods (1995-1999, 2000-2004 and 2005-2009), based on annual monitoring of the number of
calling males.
10
3 Habitat critical for survival
Geocrinia alba and G. vitellina have very restricted and fragmented distributions, due to their
dependence on specific breeding habitats which are provided in broad drainage lines within riparian
vegetation. The protection of this habitat is essential for the viability of these species. Given there is
limited information on the specific physical, ecological and hydrological requirements for these species,
generally low numbers within populations, and significant genetic variation between populations, the
habitat currently occupied is considered critical to the survival of both species. Other habitat that can be
identified as providing suitable hydrology, vegetation structure and protection from threats such as
livestock, should also be acknowledged as critical, even if the species is no longer present within it.
These sites may be the only sites available to release captive bred frogs in translocation efforts. Equally,
unoccupied habitat that potentially facilitates movement/dispersal between populations and subpopulations, or to other unoccupied suitable habitat, is also considered necessary for the survival of
these species and to maintain genetic exchange and their evolutionary development. The specific
characteristics of suitable breeding habitat and habitat that facilitates movement/dispersal are
considered a critical gap in our knowledge. This recovery plan includes actions to develop a better
understanding of all habitat critical to survival.
4 Threats
The following potential threats are likely to impact on the survival of both G. alba and G. vitellina:

physical habitat disturbance by feral and domestic fauna (e.g. pigs and cows), and humans;

alterations in hydrology of surface or subsurface flows caused either naturally (i.e. drought) or
due to anthropogenic change (i.e. dams, drainage, water extraction);

vegetation clearing of habitat and surrounding areas;

inappropriate fire events in and adjacent to habitat;

changes in water chemistry and/or quality of either surface or ground water (i.e. contamination
from herbicides, pesticides, fertilisers etc.);

disease (i.e. chytrid fungus);

climate change; and

lack of knowledge especially related to habitat, species maintenance requirements and
ecological thresholds.
11
4.1 Physical habitat disturbance
Both species occur in very specific habitats over a restricted area. Protection of this habitat is essential
for their viability. G. vitellina are totally contained within the Blackwood River National Park. The
majority of G. alba range (77%) is on private properties. Regardless of tenure, the habitats of both
species are subject to physical disturbances. Traditionally, dairy and beef cattle have been the
predominant land use on private property. Cattle have the potential to cause severe soil disturbance,
especially as they obtain water from the creek habitats. Feral pigs (Sus scrofa) occur throughout the
south-west of WA. They are capable of causing significant disturbance, particularly during summer,
when they concentrate their activity within riparian zones in their attempts to source water. The
Department of Parks and Wildlife traps for feral pigs in the area of both frog species on a regular basis,
with 10-35 pigs removed per annum; however total eradication of feral pigs is not feasible because the
methods used such as poisoning, trapping and shooting are not highly effective, and on occasion pigs
are reintroduced by hunters.
Geocrinia vitellina, being located within a National Park, may be subject to increased human visitations,
and strategies to minimise impacts (e.g. track closures, compliance and enforcement activities) will be
required.
4.2 Alterations in hydrology
The breeding biology of G. alba and G. vitellina make them particularly vulnerable to changes in
hydrology. Altering surface and/or sub-surface water flow may lead to desiccation or flooding of
habitat. Clearing of vegetation (discussed below), establishment and harvesting of plantations, and
construction of dams can all have impacts on surface and sub-surface streamflows. Although a previous
study (Sutton 1990) indicated that only six per cent of landowners intended to dam creeks, the
significant increase in viticulture operations and intensive horticulture that have emerged in the area
over the past 10 years indicates this may be an increased threat. The establishment of vines usually
requires the construction of dams as a water source. Another element of the viticulture industry is the
need to ensure that any excess water is rapidly removed from areas under vines. Many larger vineyards
establish sub-surface drainage systems to remove water quickly. These can vary from elaborate
containment ponds to basic (and more common) buried agricultural drainage pipes to divert water.
4.3 Vegetation clearing
Geocrinia vitellina has a very limited extent of occurrence of less than 6km2 and an extremely small area
of occupancy (~0.08km2) consisting of the habitat in six creek systems to the north of the Blackwood
12
River. This area is entirely within the Blackwood River National Park, consequently vegetation clearing
and logging are now of minimal threat to this species.
Geocrinia alba has an extent of occurrence of 130km2 (Roberts et al. 1999), but within this it is confined
to an area of occupancy of riparian vegetation of approximately 1.9km2 (Wardell-Johnson & Roberts
1993). Most of the range has been cleared for agriculture. Clearing began in the 1920s and rapidly
escalated between 1971 and 1981 (Pauli 1999). It has been estimated that 70 per cent of potentially
suitable riparian vegetation has been cleared within the range of G. alba (Wardell-Johnson & Roberts
1991). Geocrinia alba appear to be able to persist within this modified environment, at least in the short
term, providing the remaining riparian vegetation cover stays intact. Individuals of this species have not
been found to persist at any sites where the riparian vegetation has been cleared or severely degraded.
The majority of G. alba occur on private land where they are subject to the impacts of the owner’s
management regime. Most of the current populations have few individuals irrespective of tenure (27
populations have less than 5 calling males; 24 populations have between 5-10 calling males) (Figure 8).
Geocrinia alba is highly susceptible to the impacts of vegetation clearing, and although vegetation
clearing is regulated and the rate of broad scale clearing has declined over the last 20 years, vegetation
is still cleared for fire break construction, maintenance of utility services and the creation of illegal drug
crops. Therefore, vegetation clearing remains a significant threat to G. alba, and the protection of this
habitat must be taken into account when applications to clear native vegetation are assessed.
45%
40%
% of Sub-populations
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Extinct
<5
5-10
10-20
20+
Number of Calling Males
Figure 8: Number of Geocrinia alba on different land tenures (grey bars on conservation land,
black bars on private property) as at December 2009.
13
4.4 Inappropriate fire events
Fire is an important component in the dynamics of Australian ecosystems as an agent for disturbance
(Gill et al. 1981) and a natural factor in rejuvenating and maintaining age structures of floristic
communities (Catling & Newsome 1981). Fire succession cycles generate spatial and temporal
heterogeneity in habitats and microhabitats. At landscape levels fire stimulates and maintains local
diversity (Catling & Newsome 1981; Pianka 1992). Fire is also an important management tool to reduce
fuel loads resulting in lower intensity wildfires should they occur (Shea et al. 1981).
The effect of fire on many faunal groups is not well understood and this applies to G. alba and G.
vitellina. Although information is incomplete, inferences regarding the effects of fire on these species
can be made from limited data on G. vitellina following a wildfire in 1997, information about the
breeding biology and habits of these two species, and evidence from the congener Geocrinia lutea
(Driscoll & Roberts 1997; Bamford & Roberts 2003). These studies showed that for both wildfire and
cooler season fuel reduction burns, these species may decline initially but, depending on a number of
parameters (e.g. hydrological characteristics of the habitat and proximity to unburnt occupied areas);
tend to recover within 5-7 years post fire. This information coupled with the fact that frequent, and
often extensive fires occur in the area of their occurrence indicate that inappropriate fire events may be
a major threat and as such fire management will be required for their conservation.
A number of sites with G. vitellina that are monitored annually have had at least 23 years between fire
events and many of the G. alba on private lands are unlikely to have experienced fire since the 1960s.
Annual monitoring of populations since the mid 1990s suggests that a population’s abundance appears
to fluctuate in response to variations in seasonal rainfall and summer drought conditions. Geocrinia
vitellina and G. alba occur in permanently waterlogged conditions with seasonal inundation. This type of
habitat was more common in the past when fire was not prevalent in the south-west of WA. Its current
habitat comprises of remnants that preserve these (now unusual) conditions. In this respect G. alba and
G. vitellina stand out from other fauna species that have adapted to the onset of aridity in the
Pleistocene. As such, there appears to be no ecological requirement to apply fire within the habitat of
these species to create a disturbance regime, rejuvenate the vegetation or to maintain species
productivity, as is undertaken for other frog and mammal species. In addition, there is an increased risk
of weed invasion and decline in habitat quality following fire in small remnants (Wardell-Johnson et al.
1995).
Where possible, fire should be excluded from swamp habitat, while surrounding land should be
managed to include a variety of fire regimes.
14
4.5 Decrease in water quality
The breeding biology of G. alba and G. vitellina make them susceptible to changes in water quality
within their habitat. These threats include:

herbicide (and associated wetting agents), pesticide, fertiliser and other agricultural chemicals
that may infiltrate the sites from adjoining agricultural lands;

increased salinity levels associated with higher water tables resulting from vegetation clearing;

acidification as a result of disturbance to acid sulphate soils; and

siltation/sedimentation that can occur from disturbances within catchments.
The greatest of these threats is likely to be from the application of agricultural chemicals to lands in
close proximity to frog populations. The application of fungicides, fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides
to land adjoining known populations poses the risk of these entering and contaminating habitat areas
or causing direct harm to the individual animals. The level of knowledge on the response of Geocrinia
frog species to the range of agricultural chemicals is poor. However there is established international
literature that highlights the sensitivity of frog species to commonly used agricultural chemicals (i.e.
Mann et al. 2009).
4.6 Disease
The amphibian disease chytridiomycosis (Bactrachochytrium dendrobatidis) has been detected for both
G. vitellina (Aplin & Kirkpatrick 2000) and G. alba (H. Robertson, Perth Zoo, pers. comm.). Despite
detection there is no evidence to indicate that it has had, or is having any significant impact on the
species to date. However based on the impact this disease has had on other frog species both in
Australia and internationally, vigilance regarding hygiene practices is highly recommended until the
risks are fully understood.
15
4.7 Climate change
The south-west of WA has been assessed as being particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate
change (Pouliquen-Young & Newman 2000; Howden et al. 2003). There has been an observed rainfall
decrease of 10-20 per cent in the south-west since the 1970s and an approximate increase in
temperature of 0.7°C since the 1950s, with warming greater in winter (CSIRO 2002). The future predicted
trend is continued warming and a decreased winter rainfall, with CSIRO suggesting an approximate
temperature rise of 1°C and a 70mm reduction in annual rainfall by 2030, for the south-west (CSIRO
2002; Timbal 2004). Reduced rainfall is expected to impose additional pressures on the biodiversity of
the South West Region, including G. alba and G. vitellina (Pouliquen-Young & Newman 2000). Climate
change can exert biological, ecological and physical pressures resulting in changes such as a loss of
canopy continuity and increased fire frequency. The impact of reduced rainfall may be less or delayed if
it is found that the main source of water into a habitat is from aquifer outflow rather than surface runoff. Understanding the hydrology of occupied habitats and surrounding areas will assist in determining
specific risk levels.
4.8 Lack of knowledge
There is a lack of knowledge on these two species, especially in relation to habitat and species
maintenance requirements and ecological thresholds. More work is required to better understand the
limits of acceptable change in terms of habitat parameters for both of these species. A greater
understanding of their ecology and habitat requirements will allow more specific management actions
to be developed.
5 International obligations
The plan is fully consistent with the aims and recommendations of the Convention on Biological
Diversity, ratified by Australia in June 1993. This plan will assist in meeting Australia’s obligations under
this convention.
16
6 Affected interests
All known G. vitellina occur on land which is managed by Department of Parks and Wildlife and G. alba
occur on lands managed by Department of Parks and Wildlife, private owners and the Shire of Augusta
Margaret River. Therefore these are the main parties to be affected by this Recovery Plan. Other parties
with affected interests may include: Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia; Water
Corporation; Department of Water Western Australia; mineral exploration and extraction companies;
Forest Products Commission Western Australia; private timber companies; Conservation Commission of
Western Australia; Department of Planning Western Australia; Perth Zoo and private landholders.
7 Role and interests of Aboriginal
groups
The Aboriginal name for Geocrinia spp. is not known..
Department of Parks and Wildlife will consult with the South West Land and Sea Council as the regional
representatives for native title and indigenous engagement in the south west of Western Australia.
Implementation of recovery actions under this plan will include consideration of the role and interests of
Aboriginal communities in the region. Input will be sought from any Aboriginal groups that have an
active interest in areas where Geocrinia frogs are found. The Aboriginal Heritage Sites Register,
maintained by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, has been used to identify significant sites in the
vicinity of areas occupied by these species. However, it is noted that not all significant sites are listed on
the Register.
17
8 Social and economic interests
Geocrinia alba
Sixty five per cent of G. alba populations are on privately managed lands. Physical removal and the
degradation of riparian vegetation are major threatening processes for the survival of this species, as
are the impact of altered water regimes and potential chemical contamination from agricultural
activities. Given the land use changes to viticulture and tree plantations that have occurred in the region
over the past 10 years, a major issue exists in protecting known populations from the impacts of these
activities on privately managed lands. Determination of appropriate buffers and minimal impact
chemicals may require changes to land use planning and agricultural practices at locations adjacent to
occupied frog habitat. Quantification of the level of environmental water flows required to sustain frog
populations downstream of private dams may require changes to local water resource management.
More prescriptive regulations defining the width and placement of firebreaks through environmentally
sensitive areas are required and may result in impacts to land management activities and operations.
Geocrinia vitellina
All G. vitellina populations are on public lands managed by Department of Parks and Wildlife,
consequently the implementation of this recovery plan is unlikely to cause any adverse social or
economic impacts. Small scale inconveniences as a consequence of restricting recreational access to
three creek systems containing occurrences are not expected to cause any adverse social impacts.
18
9 Broader biodiversity benefits
Successful conservation actions that assist in the survival and recovery of G. alba and G. vitellina have
broader benefits for other species that require similar habitats. The maintenance, protection and
restoration of the specialised riparian habitats of the frogs also assists the conservation of a number of
nationally and State listed threatened fauna species such as Engaewa spp. (land burrowing crayfish),
quokka (Setonix brachyurus), western ringtail possum (Pseudocheirus occidentalis), chuditch (Dasyurus
geoffroii), white-tailed black cockatoos (Calyptorhynchus baudinii and C. latirostris), forest red-tailed
black cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus banksii naso), and state listed priority fauna species such as southern
brown bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus fusciventer), and all other local frog species that require the
maintenance and integrity of the vegetation and riparian zone. The State and nationally listed flora
species Reedia spathacea, and the State listed Priority Ecological Community Reedia spathacea,
Empodisma gracillimum, Sporadanthus rivularis dominated floodplains of the Blackwood Plateau will
also benefit.
19
10 Recovery history
10.1 Recovery actions to date
The 1995 Orange-bellied and White-bellied Frog Recovery Plan (Wardell-Johnson et al. 1995) outlined
six recovery strategies:

survey habitat;

habitat protection;

community participation;

population monitoring;

population biology; and

population genetic studies and translocations.
From these strategies, eight specific recovery actions were outlined:

survey of riparian habitat;

land tenure and management;

fire management and research;

habitat protection;

wider community participation;

population monitoring;

genetic studies; and

translocations.
A short summary of what has been achieved to date is presented below for each of the recovery actions.
Survey of Riparian Habitat
At the inception of the plan there were areas within the range of the species that had not been
surveyed, especially those areas within private property and distant from access roads. An intensive
survey of the creek systems to the east of the main area occupied by G. vitellina in the Spearwood Creek
Complex and south of the Blackwood River has been conducted. This replicated a survey undertaken in
1992-1994. Being 4-6 years between surveys, any sub-adult populations of which may have been
present, but not calling in the original survey would have matured into reproductive adults. However, no
calling was observed and therefore no new populations were discovered (Williams 1998).
20
Land Tenure and Management
The majority of G. alba occur on private land along narrow corridors of riparian vegetation among
extensive areas of cleared farmland (Wardell-Johnson et al. 1995). In 2000, 1570ha of G. alba habitat was
acquired for addition to the Blackwood River National Park. This area contained approximately 30 per
cent of the total number of known calling males (Williams 2000). Some other crown lands where G. alba
occurred is now incorporated in Blackwood River and Forest Grove National Parks.
At the commencement of the plan, all records of the G. vitellina were in State forest, under
management of Department of Parks and Wildlife. In 2004, this tenure was changed to National Park
and currently all known G. vitellina are within the Blackwood River National Park.
Fire Management and Research
Figure 9 presents data on the variation in the number of G. vitellina calling males recorded from three
sites burnt in a wildfire in September 1997 versus three unburnt sites in the same creek system. Over a
10 year post-fire period burnt and unburnt sites appear to have performed similarly with all but one of
the unburnt sites showing an increasing trend in the number of males recorded on standardised
transects. Research has been conducted on the impacts of burning activities on G. lutea (Driscoll &
Roberts 1997), a congener frog that has similar breeding biology and population structure, but is more
abundant and widespread. Findings from this research and observations have identified a set of
parameters that are required to maximise post-fire survival of a Geocrinia frog occurrence. These are:

large population of more than 50 pairs;

extensive area of habitat (i.e. large swamp systems);

riparian systems where surface water flows all year; and

in close proximity (~200m) to other populations.
21
These observations have been distilled into four fire management practice determinations that are to be
observed and further tested during the life of this plan:
High intensity bushfires in riparian habitat should be avoided, particularly in late summer and

autumn.
Deliberate application of fire to occupied Geocrinia riparian habitat should only be

considered/undertaken at inter-fire periods of 30-50 years.
To maximise the possibility of recovery, protection burns within the occupied habitat should be

undertaken in a manner and time of year (early spring) to minimise the intensity of the burn, to
achieve a fine scale mosaic and have limited or no requirements for mineral earth firebreaks to
be established.
The non riparian vegetation abutting the Geocrinia habitat should be burnt on a minimum

frequency of eight years to maintain a low fuel buffer surrounding Geocrinia habitat. Should fire
escape from the protection burn and enter occupied habitat, this frequency should be modified
to allow for a minimum of two generations of frogs to be bred for population recovery
following fire events (Geocrinia Recovery Team 1996).
50
Wildfire Sept 1997
45
Number of Calling Males
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Year
Figure 9: Lineal regression of the number of calling G. vitellina males in three burnt (dashed
lines) and three unburnt (solid lines) populations between 1996 and 2009. The wildfire occurred
in 1997.
22
Habitat Protection
The major action to protect habitat of G. alba on private property is to protect it from livestock.
Approximately 13km of conservation fences have been constructed and maintained across 19 properties
protecting approximately 17ha of riparian habitat from livestock damage. Selection criteria for
candidate properties included properties where:

the ongoing presence of stock was likely;

representative examples of frog populations existed - at both the northern and southern range
extents and central core habitat along the McLeod Creek; and

the property owners were receptive to the concept of fencing (Williams, 1998).
The major action to protect habitat of G. vitellina is to reduce the threat of disturbance from feral pigs.
Annual pig control has been maintained for the sites with G. vitellina and surrounding areas. Detailed
interviews of landowners with G. alba on their properties were conducted in October 2005. All 18
interviewees commented that they had not observed any damage from pigs in the watercourses on
their properties. Although this may lead to the assumption that feral pigs are not a threat to this
species, vigilance is required given pigs may move into the area (either naturally, or through
introduction by humans).
Habitat protection has also been supported through the introduction of enhanced clearing regulations.
Amendments to the Western Australian Environmental Protection Act 1986 in 2004 provide greater
capacity for the regulation of vegetation clearing. Under the Act, it is a principle that native vegetation
should not be cleared if it comprises the whole or part of, or is necessary for the maintenance of, a
significant habitat for fauna indigenous to WA.
Wider Community Participation
A coordinated public information program was developed because private land owners are in a good
position to regularly assess the condition of the riparian habitat on their properties, identify habitat
destruction from pigs and cattle, and reduce the threat of fire (Wardell-Johnson et al. 1995).
A ‘Frog Recovery Kit’ was produced which outlined information about the species and the recovery
process. An intensive program to confirm contact details of landowners with G. alba on their property,
field visits with the landowners and discussion on the future management of the habitat occurred from
August – December 2005. Twenty-five landowners were contacted, 12 field visits were conducted with
the owners, and four Recovery Kits were distributed.
23
Two sites occupied with G. alba have been protected by the establishment of conservation covenants on
the title of the properties (GA 26a, 26b). The conservation of these species is a shared responsibility
between Department of Parks and Wildlife, land-owners and the community. Good communications
and actions between the Department of Parks and Wildlife and landowners will facilitate effective
recovery actions, especially for G. alba.
Population Monitoring
In 1995, there was limited information concerning the long-term trends in the frog numbers and little
was known in relation to the impact of disturbance on these species.
A strategy aimed at
understanding patterns and trends within populations was implemented. Annual monitoring has been
conducted on both species to detect impacts of human-related disturbances and to assess the
effectiveness of management practices. This information has additional relevance for assessing longterm trends that may occur as a consequence of climate change.
There were three types of male call counting methods applied; point counts, transect counts and linear
counts. All known sites of Geocrinia had a point count monitoring site established and a subset of these
had transects established. Over the last decade the number of sites where transect count are conducted
has been reduced and superseded by linear count monitoring methods. This occurred because the
linear count method allows the extent of the population to be monitored by locating the first and last
calling male of a population. This type of monitoring has revealed dispersal/expansion or contraction
trends in addition to population size (see Figure 10 as an example).
24
A)
B)
Figure 10: A) Population extent (m), and B) population size (number of frogs per linear metre) of
three Geocrinia alba subpopulations between 1999 and 2012.
Genetic Studies
At the commencement of the plan, there was limited information on the genetic variability of either
species, particularly between populations. In 1995 it was determined that there was considerable
genetic structuring in both species (Driscoll et al. 1995; Driscoll 1999). The magnitude of the genetic
differences suggests that each population should be protected from extinction and high rates of
introgression because this would result in a loss of genetic diversity in both species (Wardell-Johnson et
al. 1995; Driscoll 1998a).
25
The strategy to maximise the conservation of genetic diversity is to:

protect as many populations as possible;

augment very small populations by release of captive bred stock taken originally from the same
population;

ensure stock for translocation into unoccupied habitat has the same genetic profile as the
nearest occupied site.
Translocations
Four translocation options were outlined in the plan:

translocation of egg masses in the field;

translocation of egg masses to the laboratory which are raised to adult stage for release;

translocation of adult individuals to new sites from existing populations;

captive breeding.
The translocations of eggs was the preferred option.
There are few examples in the published literature of translocation programs for amphibians. This issue
first received serious consideration and review in the early 1990s (Burke 1991; Dodd & Seigel 1991;
Reinert 1991), and more recent publications (Marsh & Trenham 2001; Seigel & Dodd 2002; Trenham &
Marsh 2002) from the northern hemisphere provide a good basis for discussion and analysis of this
method of conserving threatened amphibians.
As G. vitellina is categorised as having a lesser risk of extinction, translocations were conducted on this
species to develop and optimise the translocation processes before work was undertaken on the more
threatened G. alba.
In 2000, seven G. vitellina egg masses from Spearwood Creek North and 13 egg masses from Geo Creek
were translocated to two release sites in the Adelaide Creek (GV7a and GV7b respectively). This activity
has been partially successful with one of the sites (GV7b) recording low numbers of calling males
annually between 2003 and 2009 (Figure 11). However, the translocation to GV7a appears to have failed
(Figure 11). This demonstrated that Adelaide Creek habitat is capable of supporting and sustaining frogs
for an extended period including periods of summer drought, but that the founding population may
have been too small to provide population stability and compensate for annual mortalities and
resilience to annual weather variation.
In 2005 a single calling male was discovered approximately 40m downstream of GV7b and subsequently
34 G. vitellina egg masses were translocated to this site (GV7c). As at December 2009 there is little
evidence to suggest this action was successful with only two calling males recorded in 2009 (Figure 11).
26
In 2006 Perth Zoo commenced a captive breeding project for the Geocrinia species. Geocrinia alba egg
nests collected from the wild have been successfully maintained and metamorphs reared to one year
old. This species requires more than a year to reach sexual maturity in captivity. Attempts at breeding
and rearing G. vitellina have been less successful. Unfertilised egg nests were laid in 2008 and adults in
2009 did not appear to come into breeding condition properly (H. Robertson, Perth Zoo, pers. comm.).
A translocation of G. alba was undertaken in September 2010 to Witchcliffe Forest Block. A total of 70
individuals (62 metamorphs < 1 year old, 6 sub-adults > 1 year old, and 2 adults > 2 years old) that
were captive reared at Perth Zoo were released. Monitoring post release recorded 25 individual males
calling in September 2011. In October 2011, an additional 31 (22 adults, 9 juveniles) G. alba from Perth
Zoo were released to the same site. Future translocations and captive breeding are required to meet
recovery objectives.
9
8
Number of Calling Males
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
GV7a
2005
GV7b
2006
2007
2008
2009
GV7c
Figure11: Monitoring results (2000 – 2009) of G. vitellina translocations at three release sites in
the Blackwood River National Park.
27
10.2 Review of 1995 Recovery Plan
The recovery objective in the 1995 plan was:
“Downlisting to conservation dependant (Orange-bellied Frog) and vulnerable (White-bellied Frog) within
10 years by protecting existing populations and, if necessary, establish additional populations.”
The overall recovery objectives from the 1995 plan have therefore not been achieved as neither species
has been downlisted (see section 2.4). In fact, monitoring conducted over the course of the 1995
Recovery Plan highlighted declining trends in some populations, especially those with less than five
calling males.
The recovery criteria stated in the 1995 plan were divided into time categories and are presented in
Table 1 below along with an evaluation of their achievements to date. These indicate that the recovery
criteria were achieved.
Table 1: Recovery criteria from the 1995 recovery plan and an evaluation of their achievement.
Time Frame
2 years
7 years
10 years
1995 Recovery Criteria
Accurate knowledge of the number,
distribution and abundance of naturally
occurring populations
Habitat conservation for all orangebellied frog sites and at least 75 per
cent of currently known white-bellied
frog populations to ensure effective
genetic geographic spread.
Management and monitoring to ensure
sustainability of all populations
28
Evaluation
Achieved
All orange-bellied frog populations are
secured for conservation within the
Blackwood River National Park. Habitat
conservation
measures
have
been
undertaken in all known white-bellied frog
populations.
Annual
monitoring
and
proactive
management of threats are undertaken and
although these alone cannot ensure the
sustainability of all populations, the data
provide a sound basis from which trends can
be determined, and the effectiveness of
management actions evaluated. Significant
information is now known about the
population dynamics and genetic structuring
of the species which contribute to enhancing
appropriate management actions
11 Management practices
Management practices (policies, strategies, plans) that have a role in the protection of the species
include but are not limited to the following:

Leeuwin-Naturaliste Cape Area Parks and Reserves Draft Management Plan 2010 (DEC 2010)

Blackwood River Foundation Strategic Plan 2010-2015 (Blackwood River Foundation 2010)

Forest Management Plan 2014-2023 (Conservation Commission of WA 2013)

Policy Statement No. 3 Management of Phytophthora disease (DPaW 2014)

Policy Statement No. 29 Translocation of threatened flora and fauna (CALM 1995)

Policy Statement No. 33 Conservation of endangered and specially protected fauna in the wild
(CALM 1991)

Fire Management Guideline No. S1 Nornalup, White-bellied & Orange-bellied Frogs (DEC 2008)

Shire of Augusta Margaret River Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (SAMR 2005)

Augusta-Margaret River Landscape – a conservation action plan (CCCG 2011)

Leeuwin-Naturaliste Ridge Statement of Planning Policy Report (WAPC 1998)

Threat abatement plan for infection of amphibians with chytrid fungus resulting in
chytridiomycosis (DEH 2006)

Threat abatement plan for predation, habitat degradation, competition and disease
transmission by feral pigs (DEH 2005)
29
12 Guide for decision makers
Possible future actions that may constitute a ‘significant impact’ on G. alba and G. vitellina include:

any action that leads to clearing or disturbance of Geocrinia habitat (e.g. physical removal of
vegetation);

any action that leads to an alteration in vegetation composition, density and structure of
Geocrinia habitat;

any action that increases the likelihood of soil disturbance within Geocrinia habitat (e.g.
plantation establishment and harvesting, siltation);

any action that is likely to alter the hydrological balance (increase or decrease) of Geocrinia sites
and habitat (e.g. dam establishment, drainage projects within or adjacent to habitat, ground
water extraction);

any action that is likely to impact on the water or soil quality within Geocrinia habitat (e.g.
fertiliser run-off, chemical overspray);

any action that increases the isolation of known Geocrinia populations and as such reduces the
ability of Geocrinia to disperse (road/track construction, dams).
Alterations to existing land-uses and the creation of sub-divisions may significantly affect the species
and could therefore require environmental impact assessment under the Western Australian
Environmental Protection Act 1986 and/or the Commonwealth EPBC Act. These activities are regulated
by the shire’s town planning scheme and the Western Australian Planning Commission. It is vital that
any land-use planning activities that occur in or adjacent to known frog populations are assessed for
their potential impacts on the species survival. Consideration is also required for potential infrastructure
developments (e.g. power/phone services) and water allocation/extraction schemes, (e.g. groundwater
extraction proposals). Future developments of the Yarragadee groundwater resource (which lies
beneath the Geocrinia habitat) need to be closely monitored for any potential disturbance effects on the
species.
30
13 Recovery goal and objectives
Recovery plan goal
The overarching goal of the recovery program is to maintain or increase the current extent and viability
of these species.
Recovery Objectives

To protect and effectively manage populations and the habitat critical for their survival

To increase species viability through population augmentation and establishment

To achieve an evidence-based management approach

To increase community awareness and understanding
Geocrinia alba criteria for success:
This Recovery Plan will be deemed successful if, within a 10 year period, all of the following are
achieved:

The total number of extant subpopulations of G. alba do not decrease by more than 20 per cent
(using 2012 data as a baseline).

There is no permanent reduction (using a five year rolling average) in the number of calling G. alba
males in the McCleod Creek core habitat populations that had greater than 10 calling males in 2009.

At least two G. alba populations with a minimum 10 calling males are successfully established via
translocation.

An evidence-based management approach is applied to conserve and manage G. alba.
Geocrinia alba criteria for failure:
This Recovery Plan will be deemed to have failed if, within a 10 year period, any of the following are
achieved:

The total number of extant subpopulations of G. alba declines by more than 20 per cent (using 2012
data as a baseline).

There is permanent reduction of 40 per cent or more (using a five year rolling average) in the
number of calling G. alba males in the McCleod Creek habitat populations that had greater than 10
calling males in 2009.

No G. alba populations (with a minimum 10 calling males) is successfully established via
translocation.

An evidence-based management approach cannot be applied to conserve and manage G. alba.
31
Geocrinia vitellina criteria for success:
This Recovery Plan will be deemed successful if, within a 10 year period, all of the following are
achieved:

The number, distribution and size of subpopulations of G. vitellina known in the wild remains stable
or increases (based on a five year rolling average of male call counts).

At least one G. vitellina population with a minimum of 10 calling males is successfully established
via translocation.

An evidence-based management approach is applied to conserve and manage G. vitellina.
Geocrinia vitellina criteria for failure:
This Recovery Plan will be deemed to have failed if, within a 10 year period, any of the following are
achieved:

Any naturally occurring (i.e. non-translocated) G. vitellina population becomes extinct as a result of
controllable anthropogenic threats (e.g. fire, feral pigs, deliberate habitat destruction).

No G. vitellina populations (with a minimum 10 calling males) are successfully established via
translocation.
14 Recovery actions
Recovery actions associated with each of the recovery objectives identified for the recovery of G. alba
and G. vitellina are described below. The actions refer to both G. alba and G. vitellina unless stated
otherwise.
All recovery actions are assigned a priority ranking, this priority order is based on the
recovery needs of the overall population over the next 10 years. The three levels of priorities should be
interpreted as follows:

Priority 1: Taking prompt action is necessary in order to mitigate the threats and ensure the
persistence of these species.

Priority 2: Action is necessary to mitigate threats and work towards the long-term recovery of these
species.

Priority 3: Action is desirable, but not critical to recovery at this point in time but will provide for
longer term maintenance of recovery.
32
Objective 1: To protect and effectively manage populations and the habitat
critical for their survival.
The protection and effective management of populations and their associated habitats is essential to maintain or increase the number, distribution and size of
subpopulations. It is recognised that the degradation or loss of habitat critical for the survival of G. alba and G. vitellina will not only result in a loss of individuals and
populations, but also reduce the ability for recovery into the future. In order to prevent further habitat loss or degradation, coordinated management on both public
and private lands where these species occur or could potentially occur, is required. It is also recognised that some land uses adjacent to populations or habitat may
cause degradation and thus management of adjacent habitat is also required. This may include the development of guidelines and/or the setting of buffers for some
land uses. Additionally the amphibian disease chytridiomycosis (Bactrachochytrium dendrobatidis) has been implicated as one of the major factors that has caused
amphibian decline worldwide, and has been detected for both G. vitellina (Aplin and Kirkpatrick 2000) and G. alba (H. Robertson, Perth Zoo, pers. comm.). Despite
detection there is no evidence to indicate that it has had, or is having any significant impact on the species. However to protect these species from the potential
impacts of disease continued efforts are required regarding hygiene, monitoring and research.
Action
Description
1.1
Incorporate G. alba and G. vitellina habitat
management and protection into the appropriate
management plans and programs including:
 zoning mechanisms;
 access rationalisation;
 interpretive information and signage for visitors
(while not disclosing exact locations); and
 management of disturbances to minimise impacts
on Geocrinia habitat such as prescribed fire, track
construction and maintenance, and visitor
amenities.
Priority
1
Performance Criteria
Responsibility
Duration
G. alba and G. vitellina habitat is
recognised in management plans with
appropriate management practices.
DPaW
On-going
33
1.2
Liaise and work with landholders to ensure they are
implementing the most up to date land management
practices, to minimise the impacts on G. alba
populations, including:



1
Landholders are informed and avoid
management practices that may impact G.
alba populations.
DPaW, private
landholders
On-going
maintain regular contact with landholders;
reinforce the importance of management
practices to minimise disturbance or direct
impact on populations; and
disseminate new information on land
management practices.
1.3
Identify and implement strategies to achieve
protection of G. alba habitat on private land including
consideration of populations and important habitat
as part of environmental impact assessments and
assessment of vegetation clearing applications.
2
Effective strategies to protect populations
and habitat on private land.
DPaW, DER, EPA,
WAPC
On-going
1.4
Maintain pig control programs on DPaW-managed
lands and liaise with landowners to monitor
disturbance by pigs and take actions if required.
2
Impact of pigs on known populations and
habitat is reduced.
DPaW, private
landholders
On-going
1.5
Install and assist in the maintenance of fences to
exclude livestock from known and potential habitat
on private land.
1
Livestock is excluded from known and
potential habitat on private land.
DPaW, private
landholders
As required
1.6
Develop habitat protection guidelines for land uses
such as tree plantations, vineyards and other
horticultural pursuits on land adjacent to G. alba sites.
Define acceptable limits and thresholds and outline
suitable parameters to guide the development of
these agricultural activities that include vegetation
buffers, water interception system setbacks and water
system offsets.
2
Land uses that may impact adjacent
habitat are identified and guidelines
developed and disseminated to
landholders.
DPaW, LGA,
private
landholders
Yr 1-5
34
1.7
Undertake research and monitoring to determine the
presences and potential effects of chemicals (e.g.
herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers, wetting agents) on
the frogs and their habitat, and develop guidelines
for their use in areas adjacent to occupied or suitable
habitat.
2
Impacts of chemicals determined and
guidelines developed and disseminated.
DPaW,
researchers
Yr 1-5
1.8
Ensure appropriate fire management (on private and
public land) is conducted in all known and potential
habitat and includes:
2
Appropriate fire management is applied
to all known and potential habitat.
DPaW, private
landholders. Shire
fire control
officers, local
brigade, DFES
On-going




excluding fire from swamp habitat;
early spring prescribed burns in adjacent forested
areas to prevent wildfire – at a minimum
frequency of eight years;
locating fire breaks near but not within swamp
habitat; and
monitoring if fire does occur to determine the
impact on frog populations.
1.9
As opportunities arise, add lands containing G. alba
populations to the conservation estate.
2
All core populations are contained within
the conservation estate.
DPaW
On-going
1.10
Continue to implement hygiene standards to
minimise spread of Chytrid fungus by all persons
accessing sites, and particularly those moving
between sites.
1
Hygiene protocols developed by NSW
Department of Environment and Climate
Change are implemented to limit the
transmission of the disease between sites
(DECC 2008, Murray et al. 2011)).
DPaW,
researchers,
landholders, Perth
Zoo
On going
35
1.11
Establish quarantine reference sites where access into
the swamp habitat is prohibited. Sites with the
following characteristics would be suitable
candidates:
 Contain a single isolated subpopulation of
size class 10-20, or a subpopulation that
occurs upstream (preferably at the head of
the creek) and separated from the next
population by a significant distance.
 The site is not accessed by the public,
agencies or researchers.
Geocrinia monitoring practices are restricted to those
techniques that do not require entering the swamp –
i.e. all monitoring activities performed on the dryland
edge of the habitat.
1
Quarantine reference sites established.
DPaW
On-going
1.12
Support research into field detection and treatment
of disease, and apply to sub-populations
experiencing unexplained declines in population size.
2
Field detection and treatment developed
and applied.
DPaW,
researchers, Perth
Zoo
On-going
36
Objective 2: To increase species viability through population augmentation and
establishment
These species are currently at risk of extinction due to their small population size, limited area of occupancy and extent of occurrence, and restricted ability to
disperse. Translocations, introduction and population augmentations are key tools to assist in the recovery of species with limited distribution and population size.
Preferably captive bred stock taken originally from the same populations or the nearest occupied site will be used however, adding new genetic material may result
in an increase in the population’s genetic viability and fitness. Translocations have previously played an important role in increasing the distribution of G. vitellina
along the Blackwood River, and currently it is considered a viable option for the recovery of these species.
Action
Description
2.1
Maintain captive program at Perth Zoo to provide stock
for actions 2.2 - 2.4.
2.2
Performance Criteria
Responsibility
Duration
1
Captive program maintained at Perth Zoo.
Perth Zoo, DPaW
Minimum 5
years
Translocate captive reared G. alba to augment existing
small, but declining populations.
1
At least two small populations successfully
augmented.
DPaW, Perth Zoo
Year 1-2
2.3
Translocate captive reared G. alba into areas of suitable
habitat (possibly recently extinct sites), increasing the
area of occurrence of the species and avoiding potential
outbreeding impacts.
1
At least two new populations of G. alba
successfully established.
DPaW, Perth Zoo
Year 2-5
2.4
Translocation captive reared G. vitellina to augment GV7
sites and establish up to two additional populations in
suitable habitats south of the Blackwood River to reduce
the risk of all existing populations being impacted by a
major fire event.
1
At least one new population of G. vitellina
established south of Blackwood River.
DPaW, Perth Zoo
Year 1-3
Develop a captive breeding strategy to inform the
selection of release sites and genetic management.
2
DPaW, Perth Zoo
Year 1-5
2.5
Priority
Sub-populations at site GV7 successfully
augmented.
Captive breeding strategy developed.
37
Objective 3: To achieve an evidence-based management approach
Applying an evidence-based management approach requires pursuing the gaps in our knowledge required to make strategic and effective decisions. There is
currently a limited understanding of the essential habitat characteristics for these species and what management intervention options will be effective. This includes
an understanding of both landscape scale and site specific characteristics, particularly relating to hydrology and water quality.
Information regarding population trends is essential to evaluate management effectiveness and ensure that decisions and strategies to mitigate threats are evidencebased. Monitoring protocols have been developed and are applied annually for both species to detect population trends. This information has additional relevance
for assessing long-term trends that may occur as a consequence of climate change. Three main techniques are currently used to monitor the number of calling adult
males of both species; point counts, transect counts and linear counts. These techniques determine trends in the abundance of calling males and dispersal. Appendix
1 lists all of the known populations, their location in terms of land tenure and the monitoring technique used. In addition, as sites are regularly visited for
monitoring, they can be assessed for damage from fire, feral pigs, and human activity.
Action
Description
3.1
Monitoring conducted annually during the peak
breeding season (refer to Appendix 1).
3.2
3.3
Priority
Performance Criteria
Responsibility
Duration
1
Annual monitoring is undertaken to
evaluate population trends, management
effectiveness and threats.
DPaW
On-going
Identify and quantify the specific landscape and
catchment characters and elements that potentially
impact on existing populations.
2
Landscape and catchment characters and
elements
that
potentially
impact
populations identified.
DPaW,
researchers
Year 1-4
Determine specific site/system hydrology and the
ecological water requirements to maintain sites which
consider future changes resulting in climate change
and land use changes. Continue monitoring variables
(e.g. ground water levels, rainfall, temperature etc.).
1
Hydrological requirement defined for each
site and strategies developed to maintain
integrity, considering future impacts.
DPaW,
researchers
Year 1-5
38
3.4
Determine the influence of condition/structure of
vegetation on habitat use. Identify key site specific
characteristics, their natural limits of variation and
what parameters should be measured.
1
Vegetation
thresholds,
developed.
3.5
Investigate habitat manipulation (e.g. artificial water
systems) as mitigation against future threats such a
climate change.
1
3.6
Determine the biomass accumulation rate and other
properties of the organic litter/humus layer favoured
by the species and evaluate the role of fire to
maintain riparian vegetation and/or produce these
properties.
3.7
Increased monitoring of response of Geocrinia lutea
(located in the Warren Region) to fire, at a minimum
of every second year to determine the long-term
effect of fire on a congener species.
DPaW,
researchers
Year 2-4
Habitat manipulation options tested.
DPaW,
researchers
Year 2-4
2
Fire management guidelines developed to
produce favourable habitat properties.
DPaW
On-going
2
Monitoring of G. lutea sites undertaken at
least every two years.
DPaW
On-going
39
requirements defined with
and monitoring protocols
Objective 4: To increase community awareness and understanding
A coordinated public information program was developed to encourage private land owners to assess and manage the condition of the riparian habitat on their
properties (including habitat destruction from pigs and cattle, and reduce the threat of fire). This had led to increased community involvement, although there still
remains a general lack of broad scale awareness of the conservation status and plight of these species within the community. To ensure the recovery of these species,
there needs to be targeted efforts to increase community awareness and understanding of these species.
Action
Description
4.1
Provide public information to landholders in the Shire
of Augusta - Margaret River and the broader
community including:




4.2
Priority
Performance Criteria
Responsibility
Duration
1
An observed increase in community
awareness and landholder participation in
mitigation and protection actions.
DPaW,
NRM,
Shire of AugustaMargaret River
On-going
2
‘Frog Recovery
disseminated.
DPaW
Year 1
distribution of annual frog newsletter on G. alba
(particularly to landholders with and adjacent to
known populations);
displays at community events;
articles in local press; and
targeted rehabilitation of riparian habitats,
though Natural Resource Management (NRM)
incentives and initiatives.
Update the ‘Frog Recovery Kit’ to include current
knowledge, trends and management actions, and
distribute.
40
Kit’
updated
and
15 Implementation and evaluation
This Recovery Plan guides the recovery actions for two species; G. alba and G. vitellina. The plan will be
implemented and managed by Department of Parks and Wildlife, with the support of other relevant agencies,
non-government organisations, educational institutions, regional natural resource management authorities and
community groups as appropriate, most likely in the form of a Recovery Team or similar advisory group.
Technical, scientific, habitat management or education components of the Recovery Plan may be referred to
specialist groups as required. The plan will run for a maximum of 10 years from the date of its adoption, or until
replaced. The recovery plan will be reviewed by Department of Parks and Wildlife, in consultation with the
Recovery Team within five years of the date of its adoption, or sooner if necessary. Table 2 provides a summary
of the recovery actions and estimates of the associated costs for the first five years. Note that estimated costs do
not account for inflation and do not include recurrent management activities undertaken on conservation estate.
Table 2: Recovery actions, priorities, responsibilities and estimated costs ($000’s) for the first five years.
Action
Priority
Responsibility
Total
cost
1 To protect and effectively manage populations and the habitat critical for their survival
Incorporate into management plans
1
DPaW
$75
Liaise with landholders
1
DPaW, Private Landholders
$25
Implement strategies on private land
2
DPaW, DER, EPA, WAPC
$20
Pig control programs
2
DPaW, private landholders
$29
Fence habitat
1
DPaW, private landholders
*
Develop habitat protection guidelines
2
DPaW, private landholders, LGA
$50
Effects of chemical and guidelines
2
DPaW, researchers
$35
Implement hygiene standards
1
DPaW, researchers, landholders,
$5
Perth Zoo
Establish quarantine reference sites
1
DPaW
$5
Support disease research
2
DPaW, researchers, Perth Zoo
$60
2 To increase species viability through population augmentation and establishment
Captive breeding program
1
Perth Zoo, DPaW
$600
Translocate G. alba for augmentation
1
DPaW, Perth Zoo
$20
Translocate G. alba for establishment
1
DPaW, Perth Zoo
$40
Translocation o. vitellina for
1
DPaW, Perth Zoo
$45
augmentation and establishment
Develop captive breeding strategy
2
DPaW, Perth Zoo
$10
3 To achieve an evidence-based management approach
Monitor known populations
1
DPaW
$175
Investigate catchment characteristics
2
DPaW, researchers
$5
Investigate habitat hydrology
1
DPaW, researchers
$100
Determine critical habitat characteristics
1
DPaW, researchers
$81
Investigate habitat manipulation
1
DPaW, researchers
$81
Determine response to fire
2
DPaW
$15
Geocrinia fire impact monitoring
2
DPaW
$15
4 To increase community awareness and understanding
Provide public information to landholders
1
DPaW/NRM/Shire
$5
and broader community
Update and distribute frog recovery kit
2
DPaW
$5
TOTAL
$1,501
*Timing and amount dependant on when opportunities arise
41
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
$15
$5
$4
$3
$15
$5
$4
$10
$15
$5
$4
$3
$15
$5
$4
$3
$15
$5
$4
$10
$10
$10
$1
$10
$10
$1
$10
$5
$1
$10
$5
$1
$10
$5
$1
$1
$1
$20
$1
$20
$1
$20
$1
$120
$10
$120
$120
$120
$10
$15
$10
$10
$15
$120
$10
$10
$15
$2
$2
$2
$2
$2
$30
$1
$16
$30
$2
$40
$27
$27
$5
$35
$1
$40
$27
$27
$5
$5
$40
$1
$2
$27
$27
$2
$40
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$250
$5
$370
$352
$296
$233
$1
$5
$2
$2
$5
16 References
Aplin, K. and Kirkpatrick, P. (2000). Chytridiomycosis in southwest Australia: historical sampling documents the
date of introduction, rates of spread and seasonal epidemiology, and sheds new light on chytrid ecology. In:
Getting the Jump! On Amphibian Disease: Conference and Workshop Compendium. Cairns, 26-30 August 2000.
pp. 24.
Bamford, M. J. and Roberts, J. D. (2003). The impact of fire on frogs and reptiles in south-west Western Australia.
In: Fire in ecosystems of south-west Western Australia: Impacts and management. Eds. I. Abbot and N. Burrows,
Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands. pp. 349-361.
Blackwood River Foundation (2010). Blackwood River Foundation Strategic Plan 2010-2015. On-line:
http://www.blackwoodriverfoundation.org.au/documents/16pp%20DL%20Dep%20of%20Water%20Blackwoo
d%20River%20Strategic%20Plan7.pdf (accessed January 2012).
Burke, R. L. (1991). Relocations, repatriations, and translocations of amphibians and reptiles: taking a broader
view. Herpetologica 47: 350-357.
CALM (1991). Policy Statement No. 33: Conservation of endangered and specially protected fauna in the wild. WA
Department of Conservation and Land Management, Perth, WA.
CALM (1992). Policy Statement No. 44: Wildlife management programs. WA Department of Conservation and
Land Management, Perth, WA.
CALM (1994). Policy Statement No. 50: Setting priorities for the conservation of Western Australia's threatened
flora and fauna. WA Department of Conservation and Land Management, Perth, WA.
CALM (1995). Policy Statement No. 29: Translocation of threatened flora and fauna. WA Department of
Conservation and Land Management, Perth, WA.
Catling, P. C. and Newsome, A. E. (1981). Responses of the Australian vertebrate fauna to fire: An evolutionary
approach. In: Fire and the Australian Biota. Eds. A.M. Gill, R.H. Groves, and I.R. Noble. Australian Academy of
Science, Canberra. pp. 273-310.
Cape to Cape Catchments Group (CCCG) (2011). Augusta-Margaret River Landscape - a conservation action plan.
Margaret River, WA.
Conroy, S. D. S. (2001). Population biology and reproductive ecology of Geocrinia alba and G. vitellina, two
threatened frogs from southwestern Australia. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Western Australia, Perth.
Conroy, S. D. S. and Brook, B. W. (2003). Demographic sensitivity and persistence of the threatened white- and
orange-bellied frogs of Western Australia. Population Ecology. 45: 105-114.
Conservation Commission of WA (2013). Forest Management Plan 2014 – 2023. Conservation Commission of
WA, Perth.
CSIRO. (2002). Future Climate Change in Australia. On-line: www.cmar.csiro.au (accessed July 2006).
DEC (2008). Fire Management Guideline No. S1 Nornalup, White-bellied & Orange-bellied Frogs. WA Department
of Environment and Conservation, Perth WA.
DEC (2010). Leeuwin-Naturaliste Cape Area Parks and Reserves Draft Management Plan 2010. WA Department of
Environment and Conservation, Perth WA.
Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW) (2008). Hygiene protocol for the control of disease in
frogs.
Information
Circular
Number
6.
DECC
(NSW),
Sydney
South.
Available
from
<http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/nature/hyprfrog.pdf>
DEH (2006). Threat abatement plan for infection of amphibians with chytrid fungus resulting in chytridiomycosis.
Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra.
42
(DEH (2005).Threat abatement plan for predation, habitat degradation, competition and disease transmission by
feral pigs. Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra.
DEWHA (2008). Recovery planning - Compliance checklist for legislative and process requirements. On-line:
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/guidelines/pubs/recoverychecklist.pdf (accessed January 2012).
Dodd, C. K. and Seigel, R. A. (1991). Relocation, repatriation, and translocation of amphibians and reptiles: are
they conservation strategies that work. Herpetologica. 47: 336-350.
Department of Parks and Wildlife (2014). Policy Statement 3. Management of Phytophthora disease. Department
of Parks and Wildlife, Perth.
Driscoll, D. A. (1997). Mobility and metapopulation structure of Geocrinia alba and Geocrinia vitellina, two
endangered frog species from southwestern Australia. Australian Journal of Ecology. 22: 185-195.
Driscoll, D. A. (1998a). Genetic structure of the frogs Geocrinia lutea and Geocrinia rosea reflects extreme
population divergence and range changes, not dispersal barriers. Evolution. 52 (4): 1147-1157.
Driscoll, D. A. (1998b). Counts of calling males as estimates of populations size in the endangered frogs Geocrinia
alba and G. vitellina. Journal of Herpetology. 32 (4): 221-229.
Driscoll, D. A. (1999). Genetic neighbourhood and effective population size for two endangered frogs. Biological
Conservation. 88: 221-229.
Driscoll, D. A. and Roberts, J. D. (1997). Impact of fuel-reduction burning on the frog Geocrinia lutea in southwest
Western Australia. Australian Journal of Ecology. 22: 334-349.
Driscoll, D. A.(1996). Understanding the metapopulation structure of frogs in the Geocrinia rosea complex through
population genetics and population biology: Implications for conservation and evolution. Unpublished PhD
thesis, University of Western Australia, Perth.
Driscoll, D., Wardell-Johnson, G. and Roberts, J.D. (1995). Genetic structuring and distribution patterns in rare
south-western Australian frogs: implications for translocation programs. In: Reintroduction biology of
Australasian and New Zealand Fauna. Ed. M.Serena, Surrey-Beatty and Sons, Sydney.
Geocrinia Recovery Team (1996). Review of Progress Report: Endangered Species Project 175: White-bellied and
Orange-bellied Frogs. Unpublished report prepared for the Department of Conservation and Land
Management and the Australian Nature Conservation Agency.
Gill, A. M., Groves, R. H., and Noble, I. R. Eds (1981). Fire and the Australian Biota. Australian Academy of Science,
Canberra.
Howden, M., Hughes, L., Dunlop, M., Zethoven, I., Hilbert, D. and Chilcott, C. (2003). Climate Change Impacts on
Biodiversity in Australia. Outcomes of a workshop sponsored by the Biological Diversity Advisory Committee,
1-2October 2002. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
IUCN (2004). 2004 IUCN Redlist of Threatened Species. Online: www.redlist.org (accessed November 2011).
Mann, R. M., Hyne, R. V., Choung, C. B., and Wilson, S. P. (2009). Amphibians and agricultural chemicals: Review of
the risks in a complex environment. Environmental Pollution. 157 (11): 2903-2927.
Marsh, D. M. and Trenham, P. C. (2001). Metapopulation dynamics and amphibian conservation. Conservation
Biology. 15: 40-49.
Murray, K., Skerratt, L., Marantelli, G., Berger, L., Hunter, D., Mahony, M. and Hines, H. (2011). Hygiene protocols for
the control of diseases in Australian frogs. A report for the Australian Government Department of
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra.
Pauli, N. (1999). Environmental Factors and Extinction in the White-Bellied Frog, Geocrinia alba. Unpublished
Honours Thesis. University of Western Australia, Perth.
Pianka, E.R. (1992). Fire Ecology. Research and Exploration. 8(3): 352-371.
43
Pouliquen-Young, O. and Newman, P. (2000). The Implications of Climate Change for Land-based Nature
Conservation Strategies. Final Report 96/1306. Australian Greenhouse Office, Environment Australia, Canberra
and Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy, Murdoch University, Perth.
Reinert, H. K. (1991). Translocation as a conservation strategy for amphibians and reptiles: some comments,
concerns, and observations. Herpetologica. 47: 357-363
Roberts, J. D., Conroy, S. and Williams, K. (1999). Conservation status of frogs in Western Australia. In: Declines
and Disappearances of Australian Frogs. Ed. A.Campbell, Environment Australia, Canberra. pp. 177-184.
Roberts, J. D., Wardell-Johnson, G., and Barendse, W. (1990). Extended descriptions of Geocrinia vitellina and
Geocrina alba (Anura: Myobatrachidae) from south-western Australia, with comments on the status of G.
lutea. Records of the Western Australian Museum. 14 (4): 427-437.
SAMR (2005). Shire of Augusta-Margaret River biodiversity conservation strategy: discussion paper. Shire of
Augusta-Margaret River, Western Australia.
Seigel, R. A. and Dodd, C. K. (2002). Translocations of amphibians: Proven management method or experimental
technique? Conservation Biology. 16: 552-554.
Shea, S. R., Peet, G. B. and Cheney, N. P. (1981). The role of fire in forest management. In: Fire and the Australian
Biota. Eds. A.M. Gill, R.H. Groves and I.R. Noble. Australian Academy of Science, Canberra. Pp. 443-470.
Sutton, A. (1990). Wildlife Management Program for White-bellied Frog and Orange-bellied Frog. Unpublished
report, Murdoch University, Western Australia.
Timbal, B. (2004). Southwest Australia past and future rainfall trends. Climate Research. 26: 233-249.
Trenham, P. C. and Marsh, D. M. (2002). Amphibian translocation programs: Reply to Seigel and Dodd.
Conservation Biology. 16: 555-556.
Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) (1998). Leeuwin-Naturaliste Ridge Statement of Planning Policy
Report. WAPC, Perth.
Wardell- Johnson, G. and Roberts, J. D. (1993). Biogeographical barriers in a subdued landscape: the distribution
of Geocrinia rosea (Anura: Myobatrachidae) complex in south-western Australia. Journal of Biogeography. 20:
95-108.
Wardell-Johnson, G. and Roberts, J. D. (1989). Endangered! Yellow-bellied and white-bellied frog. Landscope, 5:
17. Department of Conservation and Land Management, Perth.
Wardell-Johnson, G. and Roberts, J. D. (1991). The survival status of the Geocrinia rosea (Anura: Myobatrachidae)
complex in riparian corridors: biogeographical implications. In: Nature Conservation 2: The role of Corridors.
Eds. D.A Saunders and RJ Hobbs. [p. 167-175. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Sydney.
Wardell-Johnson, G., Roberts, J. D., Driscoll, D. and Williams, K. (1995). Orange-bellied and White-bellied Frogs
Recovery Plan. 2nd Edition. Department of Conservation and Land Management. Perth, Western Australia.
Williams, K. (1998). Geocrinia Recovery Team Annual Report: Project #175. Unpublished report prepared for the
Department of Conservation and Land Management and the Australian Nature Conservation Agency.
Williams, K. (2000). Geocrinia Recovery Team Annual Report: 1999. Unpublished report prepared for the
Department of Conservation and Land Management.
Personal Communication References
K. Williams – Kim Williams (Department of Parks and Wildlife South West Region)
H. Robertson – Helen Robertson (Perth Zoo)
44
Appendix I
List of known population, land tenure, monitoring technique used and status at 2012.
Site
Name
Land
Tenure
Monitoring
Method
Extinct
Site
Name
Land
Tenure
Monitoring
Method
Extinct
GA10
PP
PC
X
GA38
PP
PC
X
GA102
SF/UCL
PC
GA39a
PP
PC
GA11
PP
PC
GA39b
PP
PC
GA117
PP
PC
GA39c
PP
PC
GA12a
PP
PC
GA40
PP
PC
GA12b
PP
PC
GA41
NP
PC
GA12c
PP
PC
GA41b
NP
PC
GA12d
PP
PC
GA42
SF/UCL
PC
GA12e
PP
PC, Ex
GA42b2010
SF/UCL
PC, SC
GA13
PP
PC
GA43
SF/UCL
PC, Ex
GA14
PP
PC, Ex
GA44
PP
PC, Ex
GA15
PP
PC, Ex
GA45a
PP
PC, T
GA16
PP
PC
GA45b
PP
PC, Ex
GA17a
PP
PC
GA46
NP
PC
X
GA17b
PP
PC
GA47a
NP
PC
X
GA17c
PP
PC
GA47a_20
NP
PC
GA17d
RR
PC
X
GA47b
NP
PC
GA18
PP
PC
X
GA47c
NP
PC
GA19
PP
PC
X
GA47d
NP
PC
X
GA1a
SF/UCL
PC, T
GA47e
NP
PC
X
GA1b
PP
PC
GA47f
NP
PC
GA2
PP
PC
X
GA47g
NP
PC
GA20
PP
PC
X
GA48
NP
PC, Ex
GA21
PP
PC
X
GA49
NP
PC
GA22
PP
PC
X
GA4a
PP
PC
GA23a
RR
PC
X
GA4b
PP
PC
GA23b
PP
PC
X
GA4j
PP
PC
GA24a
NP
PC
GA5
PP
PC
GA24b
PP
PC
GA50a
NP
PC
GA24c
PP
PC
GA50b
NP
PC
GA24d
PP
PC
GA50c
NP
PC
GA24e
PP
PC
GA51
NP
PC
GA25a
NP
PC
X
GA53
PP
PC
X
GA25b
PP
PC
X
GA54
NP
PC
X
GA25c
NP
PC
X
GA55a
PP
PC
GA26a
PP
PC
X
GA55b
NP
PC
GA26b
PP
PC
X
GA55c
NP
PC, Ex
45
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Site
Name
Land
Tenure
Monitoring
Method
Site
Name
Land
Tenure
Monitoring
Method
GA27
PP
PC
GA55d
PP
PC, Ex
GA28
PP
PC
GA55e
PP
PC
GA29
PP
PC
GA56
PP
PC
GA3
PP
PC
GA57
NP
PC
X
GA30
PP
PC
GA6a
NP
PC
X
GA30b
PP
PC
GA6b
NP
PC, Ex
GA31a
PP
PC, Ex
GA6c
NP
PC, Ex
GA31b
PP
PC
GA6e
NP
PC, Ex
GA31c
PP
PC, Ex
GA7
NP
PC, Ex
GA32
PP
PC
GA8
NP
PC, Ex
GA33
NP
PC,Ex
GA9
PP
PC
GA34a
PP
PC, Ex
GA-TAN-A98
PP
PC
GA34b
PP
PC, Ex
GA-TAN-B98
PP
PC
GA35a
NP
PC, Ex
GV1a
NP
PC, T
GA35b
NP
PC, Ex
GV1b
NP
PC, T
GA36
NP
PC
GV1c
NP
PC, T
GA37a
NP
PC, LT
GV1d
NP
PC
GA37b
NP
PC, LT
GV2
NP
PC, T
GA37c
NP
PC, Ex
GV3a
NP
PC
GA37d
NP
PC, LT
GV3B
NP
PC, SC
GA37e
NP
PC, LT
GV4A
NP
PC, T
GA37f
NP
PC
X
GV4a_98
NP
PC, T
GA37g
NP
PC
X
GV4b
NP
PC, T
GA37i
NP
PC, Ex
GV5
NP
PC, T
Ga37j
NP
PC
GV6
NP
PC, T
GA37k
NP
PC
GV7A
NP
PC
GA37L
NP
PC
GV7B
NP
PC, SC
GA37M
NP
PC
GV7C
NP
PC, SC
GA37_99
NP
PC, Ex
Extinct
X
X
X
X
X
Extinct
Tenure: PP: private property, NP: National Park, SF/UCL: State Forest/Unallocated crown Land, RR: Shire road reserve
Monitoring Method: PC: Point count, T: Transect, LT: Linear transect, Ex: Extent, SC: Search count
Extinct: refers to any site which has had a minimum of four consecutive years of no calling activity (1983 to 2012)
46
X
X